# C/M, F.R. Islamia Inter College, Bareilly & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 10 ILRA 225
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-09-21
- **Case number:** Writ- C No. 13003 of 2020
- **Bench:** Prakash Padia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/c-m-f-r-islamia-inter-college-bareilly-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45165
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

C.S.C., Sri Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi, Sri
Samarath Singh, Sri G.K. Singh, Sri Sankalp
Narain

A. Committee of management - Scheme of
Administration - Convening of Meeting - Prior
approval of President - Requirement - Under
the clause of Scheme, an extra-ordinary
emergent meeting could only be called by the
Manager/Secretary with the approval of the
President and by written request of at least 1/5
elected members - Word 'and' has been used in
the aforesaid clause and not the word 'or' -
Both the things are necessary for convening the
meeting - Held, the order of DIOS disapproving
resolution on the ground that meeting was not
convened with the approval of the President
absolutely perfect and valid order. (Para 19)
B.
Committee
of
management
-
Administration - President refused to hold
meeting - According to Scheme, a meeting
should be convened at least once every quarter
by the Manager/Secretary with the approval of
the President - The administration of the
College has to be carried on in a democratic
manner which is object of the constitution of the
Committee of Management - Inspite of direction
of the High Court, no meeting could be held -
Held, the unilateral decision of the President for
not holding the meeting of the Committee of
Management an abuse of power - Mandamus
issued to the President to grant its approval for
holding the meeting of the Committee of
Management
as
per
the
Scheme
of
Administration. (Para 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25)
Writ Petition disposed off (E-1)

## Text

10 All. C/M, F.R. Islamia Inter College, Bareilly & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
225

31. The writ petition succeeds and is
allowed. The matter is remanded back to
the respondent - Corporation for passing a
fresh reasoned and speaking order with
regard to the petitioner's claim after
furnishing opportunity of hearing to all the
stake holders.

32. It is desirable that the respondent -
Corporation may take a decision on the
claim of the petitioner, if possible, within a
period of two months from the date of
production of a copy of this order.
----------
(2020)10ILR A225
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.09.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

Writ- C No. 13003 of 2020

C/M, F.R. Islamia Inter College, Bareilly &
Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Ashok Khare, Sri J.P. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi, Sri
Samarath Singh, Sri G.K. Singh, Sri Sankalp
Narain

A. Committee of management - Scheme of
Administration - Convening of Meeting - Prior
approval of President - Requirement - Under
the clause of Scheme, an extra-ordinary
emergent meeting could only be called by the
Manager/Secretary with the approval of the
President and by written request of at least 1/5
elected members - Word 'and' has been used in
the aforesaid clause and not the word 'or' -
Both the things are necessary for convening the
meeting - Held, the order of DIOS disapproving
resolution on the ground that meeting was not
convened with the approval of the President
absolutely perfect and valid order. (Para 19)
B.
Committee
of
management
-
Administration - President refused to hold
meeting - According to Scheme, a meeting
should be convened at least once every quarter
by the Manager/Secretary with the approval of
the President - The administration of the
College has to be carried on in a democratic
manner which is object of the constitution of the
Committee of Management - Inspite of direction
of the High Court, no meeting could be held -
Held, the unilateral decision of the President for
not holding the meeting of the Committee of
Management an abuse of power - Mandamus
issued to the President to grant its approval for
holding the meeting of the Committee of
Management
as
per
the
Scheme
of
Administration. (Para 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25)
Writ Petition disposed off (E-1)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Prakash Padia, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Sri J.P. Singh,
learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
Standing Counsel for respondents no.1 and
2 and Sri G. K. Singh, learned Senior
Counsel assisted by Sri Sankalp Narain,
learned counsel for the respondent no.3.

2. The petitioners have preferred the
present writ petition inter-alia with the
prayer to quash the order dated 6.7.2020
passed by the District Inspector of Schools,
Bareilly/respondent
no.2
with
further
prayer to issue a mandamus directing the
aforesaid respondent to pass fresh order on
Management's resolution dated 28.6.2020.

3. The facts in brief as contained in
the writ petition are that the institution in
question namely F.R. Islamia Inter College,
is a recognized and aided Intermediate
College, which is a minority institution.
226 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
The institution in question is run and
controlled by the provisions contained
under The U.P. Intermediate Education Act,
1921
and
the
regulations
framed
thereunder. There is an approved Scheme
of Administration. The last elections of
Committee of Management was held on
20.5.2016 in which the petitioner no.2
namely Mahammad Isar Ahmad was
elected
as
Manager/Secretary
of
the
College and the respondent no.3, namely,
Mohammad Nafees Ansari was elected as
President. The aforesaid election was duly
recognized by the respondent no.2/District
Inspector of Schools, vide order dated
28.5.2016.

4. Certain disputes arose in the institution
in question in respect of financial irregularities
committed in the institution. On 15.7.2019 an
order was passed by the respondent no.2
attesting the signature of Deputy Manager as
Manager for remaining terms. A Writ Petition
No.27507 of 2019 (Committee of Management
F.R Islamia Inter College and another vs. State
of U.P. and 3 others) was filed before this Court,
challenging the order dated 15.7.2019 passed
by the District Inspector of Schools, Bareilly.
The writ petition was duly entertained and an
interim protection was granted by a Coordinate
Bench of this Court on 18.9.2019. By the
aforesaid order, the operation of the order dated
15.7.2019 passed by the District Inspector of
Schools,
Bareilly
was
stayed.
Further
Management of the institution in question was
directed to call a meeting of the Committee of
Management between 25.9.2019 and 1.10.2019
after service of notice upon the respondent no.3
and 4 along with all other members of the
Committee of Management to discuss the
special audit report. The order dated 18.9.2019
passed in the aforesaid writ petition is
reproduced hereinbelow :-

"Heard Sri J.P. Singh, learned
counsel for the petitioners, Sri G.K.Singh,
learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri
Chandra Prakash Yadav, learned counsel for
the respondents No.3 and 4 and learned
Standing Counsel for the respondent-State.

The petitioner has assailed the order
dated 15.07.2019 passed by the District
Inspector of Schools, Bareilly, approving the
removal of the petitioner. The petitioner is a
manager of the institution.

Sri J.P. Singh, learned counsel for
the petitioner, contends that the order of the
District Inspector of Schools, Bareilly has been
passed in violation of the principles of natural
justice. The petitioner upon receipt of notice
made a requisition to the District Inspector of
Schools, Bareilly for relevant documents
including the resolution passed against the
petitioner on the foot of which he was removed.
The relevant documents were not provided to
the petitioner and the impugned order was
passed relying on the aforesaid documents. The
defence of the petitioner was disabled by the
procedure adopted by the petitioner.

It is specifically asserted that the
meeting allegedly called to remove the
petitioner was convened in breach of the
scheme of administration. The persons,
who had called the meeting, did not have
the authority to convene the meeting. He
further contends that the final audit report
does not indict the petitioner. The petitioner
had pointedly raised a query to the District
Inspector of Schools, Bareilly indicating
the finding against the petitioner regarding
misutilization of the funds. The District
Inspector of Schools, Bareilly did not
respond to the aforesaid request. It is lastly
asserted that an audit report is at best an
opinion of the auditor. It is not a finding of
a competent authority.

The matter needs consideration.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents as well as learned Standing
Counsel pray for and are granted four
weeks' time to file counter affidavit.
10 All. C/M, F.R. Islamia Inter College, Bareilly & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
227

List thereafter.

Till further orders of this Court,
the effect and operation of the order dated
15.07.2019 passed by the District Inspector
of Schools, Bareilly, shall remain stayed.

The
respondents
shall
not
interfere in the functioning of the petitioner
as manager of the institution.

The petitioner is directed to call a
meeting of the committee of management
between 25.09.2019 to 01.10.2019 after
service of notice upon the respondents No.3
and 4 along with all other members of the
committee of management to discuss the
special audit report. The committee of
management is shall pass a resolution in
accordance with law. The notices of the
meeting shall be sent by registered post AD.
It shall also be published in a local
newspaper having wide circulation.

This order does not prohibit the
competent authority to investigate the
allegations of misutilization of funds if
any."

5. On 13.2.2020 only six members
submitted
an
application
before
the
Manager of the institution in question
namely petitioner no.2 for convening the
meeting of the Committee of Management
to discuss regarding forged resolution dated
28.7.2018. After receiving the aforesaid
letter
petitioner
no.2
contacted
the
respondent
no.3-
President
of
the
Committee of Management for giving
permission to issue agenda. The respondent
no.3 refuse to issue the same. In the
aforesaid circumstances on 22.2.2020 a
agenda was issued fixing 03.03.2020 for
meeting of the Committee of Management.

6. On 29.2.2020 the respondent
no.3/President of the institution wrote a
letter to the petitioner no.2 referring Clause
9 of the Scheme of Administration which
provides that meeting of the Committee of
Management can be convened only after
permission/approval of the President.

7. The meeting of the Committee of
Management was held on 03.03.2020. In
the aforesaid meeting a resolution was
passed that an explanation be sought from
the President/Respondent no.3 and in the
meantime, the office of the President was
handed over to one Dr. Shakir Ali.

8. On 7.3.2020 the petitioner no.2
wrote
a
letter
to
the
respondent
no.4/Incharge Principal intimating him that
in the meeting of the Committee of
Management dated 19.4.2019 an enquiry
committee was constituted to enquire into
the serious irregularities committed by him
and in this regard a show cause notice was
issued to him on 29.4.2019. Since no reply
was given by him he was directed to submit
his explanation and to handover charge of
the post of Principal to one Sri Tauqir
Siddiqui
pending
enquiry.
In
the
meanwhile, he was further directed to work
on his original post of Lecturer.

9. Vide letter dated 12.3.2020
petitioner no.2 wrote a letter to the District
Inspector of Schools, Bareilly intimating
him in detail regarding management
decision for removal of Sri Javed Khalid
pending enquiry and to appoint Tauqir
Siddiqui Lecturer (Math) as officiating
principal. A request was also made for
attesting the signature of Tauqir Siddiqui as
officiating Principal so that the salary bills
of the college be passed timely. The District
Inspector of Schools, Bareilly vide order
dated 20.3.2020 disapproved the resolution
of the management dated 3.3.2020 on the
ground that the resolution was passed
contrary to Clause 9 of the Scheme of
Administration. He also proceeded to reject
228 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the request of the management for attesting
the
signatures
of
newly
appointed
officiating
principal
namely
Tauqir
Siddiqui. It is further observed by him in
his order that if the manager wants to
convene a meeting he should send agenda
of the meeting to the President by
registered post in terms of the Clause 9 of
the approved Scheme of Administration
and the President should take cognizance of
the concern agenda and only thereafter take
the appropriate proceedings for holding
meeting of the management. Copy of the
order dated 20.3.2020 is appended as
annexure 16 to the writ petition.

10. The petitioner no.2 accepted the
observations of the District Inspector of
Schools, Bareilly/respondent no.2 and
thereafter, send a letter dated 21.5.2020 to
the President/respondent no.3 by registered
post intimating him that in view of the
written request of the members dated
20.5.2020 it has now became necessary to
convene the meeting of the Managing
Committee. A reply was given by the
respondent no.3 vide his letter dated
26.5.2020. In the aforesaid letter it is stated
by him that in view of the guidelines issued
by the Government of India agenda cannot
be approved. The respondent no.3 cited on
going lock-down and the guidelines issued
by the Ministry of Home Affairs suggesting
all the persons above 65 to stay in their
homes.

11. Thereafter, again on 1.6.2020 the
petitioner no.2 send a letter to the
respondent no.3 inviting his attention that
meeting of the Managing Committee is
necessary. It is further stated in the
aforesaid letter that all Government offices
has been opened even for the evaluation of
answer books. In the circumstances, a
request has been made by the petitioner
no.2 from respondent no.3 to convene a
meeting after following the norms of social
distancing. In response to the same, again a
letter dated 5.6.2020 was written by the
respondent no.3 to the petitioner no.2
intimating him that in view of the
guidelines issued by the Government of
India, the agenda in the meeting of the
Committee of Management cannot be
approved.

12. On 10.6.2020 the petitioner no.2
replied
the
aforesaid
letter
of
the
respondent no.3 and along-with reply
agenda was also send to him by registered
post for his approval. Copy of the aforesaid
letter was also forwarded in the office of
the respondent no.2 for intimation. A reply
was given by the respondent no.3 vide
letter dated 15.6.2020 again refusing his
permission/approval citing Covid-19. In the
meanwhile, on 18.6.2020 six members of
the managing committee wrote a letter to
the petitioner no.2 for convening the
meeting of the committee of management.
On 19.6.2020 a agenda was issued for the
meeting to be held on 28.6.2020. On
22.6.2020 the respondent no.3 issued a
letter
cancelling
the
meetting
dated
28.6.2020 citing the guidelines issued by
the Government of India. It further appears
from perusal of the record that the meeting
of the Committee of Management was held
on 28.6.2020 and in absence of the
approval of the President resolution passed
in the aforesaid meeting was forwarded by
the petitioners before the respondent no.2.
The respondent no.2 passed an order on
6.7.2020
discarding/disapproving
the
management resolution dated 28.6.2020 on
the sole ground that the meeting in question
was not convened with the approval of the
President. It is further stated in the
aforesaid order that the meeting dated
28.6.2020 is contrary to the provisions
10 All. C/M, F.R. Islamia Inter College, Bareilly & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
229
contained in the Scheme of Administration,
therefore, the same is illegal. While passing
the aforesaid order the respondent no.2
referred Clause 9(ii) of the Scheme of
Administration, copy of the order dated
28.6.2020, which is appended as annexure
37 to the writ petition. Aggrieved against
the aforesaid decision taken by him the
petitioners have preferred the present writ
petition.

13. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

14. The institution in question namely
F.R. Islamia Inter College, is a recognized
and aided Intermediate College run and
controlled by the provisions contained
under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act,
1921
and
the
regulations
framed
thereunder. The institutuon in question is
run
and
controlled
by
Scheme
of
Administration, which was approved by the
competent authority. The powers and duties
of the President has been mentioned under
Clause 15 of the scheme of administration.
The same is reproduced hereinbelow :-

"Powers and duties of OfficeBearers.

The powers and duties of officebearers shall be as follows :

(I) President- (a) To preside at the
Meetings of the Committee.

(b) To approve the dates for
holding meetings and to postpone or adjourn
them.

(c) To see that this Scheme of
Administration is faithfully carried out by all
concerned.

(d) To sign jointly with the
Manager all agreements relating to the
College and all deeds of transfer, contract
and other documents relating to the
immovable property of the institution.

(e) To incur expenditure upto a
maximum of Rs. 150/- in anticipation of the
Committee.

(f) To the extent he is so authorised
by a resolution of the Committee, to act on its
behalf in emergencies when a meeting cannot
be called and to report forthwith to the
Committee the action taken by him.

(g) To exercise such other powers
and to perform such other duties as are
conferred or imposed on him by this Scheme
or by any rule or law for the time being in
force."

15. Apart from the same, the relevant
paragraph merely paragraph 9 deals with the
meeting of the committee is reproduced
below :-

". Meeting of the Committee.

(i)
Ordinary
Meetings
-
An
ordinary meeting of the Committee shall be
called by the Manager/Secretary at least once
every quarter with the approval of the
President.

(ii) Extra ordinary or Emergency
Meetings - The Manager/Secretary (with
the approval of the President) may when
necessary and shall on the written
requisition of at least once fifth of the
elected members containing the resolution
of specific subject for consideration, call an
emergent meeting of the Committee.

(iii) Notice of the Meeting- At
least seven clear days notice shall be given
for an ordinary meeting of the Committee
and three clear days notice for an emergent
or extra ordinary meeting. Provided that in
case of sending of notice by Post at the last
known address of the member nine days
before the date of an emergent meeting
shall be deemed sufficient service on him in
due time. The notice shall contain the
agenda and specify the place, date and time
of the meeting.
230 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(iv)
Quorum
and
adjourned
meeting- Six members or one third of the
total number of the then members,
whichever is greater, shall form the quorum
for the meeting. In the absence of the
required quorum upto 30 minutes after the
time fixed for the commencement of the
meeting, the same shall stand adjourned
and may be held again the same day or the
next day at a time announced by the
President at the expiry of the said 30
minutes. No quorum or any other notice
shall be required for an adjourned meeting,
but no matter shall be taken up there which
was not included in the agenda of the
meeting which was adjourned for want of
quorum."

16. From the combined reading of the
aforesaid clauses it is clear that extraordinary or emergent meeting could only be
called with the approval of the President
and only after written requisition of at least
1/5 of elected members.

17. It is argued by Sri Ashok Khare,
learned Senior Counsel that in case there
was no approval of the President then a
request can be made by the 1/5 of the
elected members and the meeting could be
convene.

18. On the other hand Sri G. K.
Singh, learned Senior Counsel contended
that in order to hold the meeting as per
Clause 9 of the approved Scheme of
Administration
both
the
things
are
necessary, i.e., the approval of the President
as well as written request of at least 1/5 of
the elected members.

19. The Court is of the opinion that
Clause 9 (ii) of the scheme are absolutely
clear. It is clearly stated in the aforesaid
clause that an extra-ordinary emergent
meeting could only be called by the
Manager/Secretary with the approval of the
President and by written request of at least
1/5 elected members. From perusal of the
same, it is clear the word "and" has been
used in the aforesaid clause and not the
word "or". From perusal of the same it is
clear that both the things are necessary for
convening the meeting. After taking into
consideration the aforesaid clause of the
Scheme of Administration the order has
been passed by the respondent no.2 on
6.7.2020. The Court is of the opinion that
the aforesaid order is absolutely perfect and
valid order and does not call for any
interference by this Court.

20. It further appears from perusal of
the record that under Clause 9(i) of the
Scheme of Administration it is provided
that the meeting of the Committee of
Management shall be called by the
Manager/Secretary at least once in every
quarter with the approval of the President.
It appears from perusal of the record that
though time and again the Manager of the
institution in question wrote letters to the
President to call for a meeting but due to
Covid-19 objections were raised by the
President not to convene the meeting. It
further appears from perusal of the last
paragraph of the order impugned that a
direction was given to hold the meeting of
the general body after following the
guidelines issued by the State Government.

21. The every institution is run and
controlled by the provisions of the Scheme
of Administration. It is provided under subClause 1 of Clause 9 of the Scheme of
Administration that a meeting of the
Committee of Management should be
called by the Manager/Secretary at least
every quarter with the approval of the
President. It appears from perusal of the
10 All. C/M, F.R. Islamia Inter College, Bareilly & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
231
record that from last so many months no
meeting was convened due to Covid-19. It
further appears that though the steps were
taken by the Manager of the institution to
convene the meeting the same could not be
held due to the fact that the approval was
not given by the President. No institution
could run without holding the meeting of
the Managing Committee. Time and again
the President again refused to hold the
meeting by taking a shelter of Covid-19.
According to sub-clause (i) of clause 9, a
meeting should be convened at least once
every quarter by the Manager/Secretary
with the approval of the President.

22. This Court, by order dated
18.9.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.27 of
2019 has directed the Manager of the
Committee of Management to call a
meeting of the Committee of Management
between 25.09.2019 to 01.10.2019 after
service of notice upon the respondent nos.3
& 4 of aforesaid writ petition along with all
other members of the Committee of
Management to discuss the special audit
report.

23. From the record it appears that the
aforesaid direction of this Court has not
been complied with and no meeting of
Committee of Management, as directed by
this Hon'ble Court had been held.

24. As per Clause 9(1) of the Scheme
of Administration it is mandatory to hold
the meeting of Committee of Management
in every quarter. The President of the
Committee of Management, on one pretext
or the other, is neither granting approval for
holding meeting of the Committee of
Management nor the requisition for holding
emergent meeting of the Committee of
Management is being approved by the
President
of
the
Committee
of
Management. The administration of the
College has to be carried on in a
democratic manner which is object of the
constitution
of
the
Committee
of
Management. The unilateral decision of the
President of the Committee of Management
for not holding the meeting of the
Committee of Management is infact abuse
of power. The ground taken by the
President of the Committee of Management
for not grating approval for holding the
meeting of the Committee of Management
is the guidelines issued by the State
Government in view of Covid-19. The
college is an Intermediate College. There
must be sufficient space for holding
meeting of the Committee of Management
following the guidelines issued by the State
Government for holding a meeting, i.e.,
social distance.

25. Thus, taking in view of the entire
fact
and
circumstances
of
the
case
including the abuse of power by the
President, a mandamus is issued directing
the
President
of
the
Committee
of
Management to grant its approval for
holding the meeting of the Committee of
Management as per Clause 9 of the Scheme
of Administration. The petitioner no.2 is
directed to send a requisition for holding a
meeting of Committee of Management to
the respondent no.3, i.e., President of the
Committee of Management. The President
of the Committee of Management is
directed to grant its approval for holding
meeting of the Committee of Management
following the norms issued by the State
Government regarding Covid-19.

26. The intimation of the meeting
along with agenda of the Committee of
Management be send to all the members of
the Committee of Management and the
meeting of the Committee of Management
232 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
be positively held within a period of six
weeks from today. It is further provided
that the Manager will ensure that all the
Protocols
as
prescribed
under
the
guidelines and norms issued by the State
Government and Central Government with
regard to Covid-19 are followed.

27. With the aforesaid observations
the writ petition is disposed off.
----------
(2020)10ILR A232
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.09.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.

Writ- C No. 13366 of 2020

Smt. Priya Verma & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Sabhajeet, Nishad Ramjanki

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Constitution of India - Article 21 - Marital
right to live together - Where a boy and a girl are
major and they are living with their free will, then,
nobody including their parents, has authority to
interfere with their living together - Held, the
petitioners are at liberty to live together and no
person shall be permitted to interfere in their
peaceful living. (Para 9 and 10)
Writ Petition partly allowed (E-1)
Cases relied on :-
1. Gian Devi Vs The Suptd., Nari Niketan, Delhi &
ors. (1976) 3 SCC 234
2. Lata Singh Vs St. of U.P. & anr.; (2006) 5 SCC
475
3. Bhagwan Dass Vs. St. (NCT of Delhi); (2011) 6
SCC 396
4. Deepika & anr. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.; 2013 (9)
ADJ 534
(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra
Thaker, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for
the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner is
permitted to amend the prayer clause. He
may do so during the course of the day.

2. Petitioners have preferred this writ
petition for a direction upon the respondents
not to interfere in their married life and also
for protection of their life and liberty.

3. The petitioners claim that they are
adults and living together out of their own
freewill. It is stated that for the said reason,
the private respondent and his other family
members have got annoyed and there is
serious danger to the life of the petitioners
as they are being threatened and harassed.

4. In support of their age, petitioners
brought on record their high school
certificates which show that they are major.
They have also brought on record the
complete online application for registration
of their marriage.

5. The petitioners have averred in the
writ petition that they are living as wife and
husband. It is stated that they have
apprehension that private respondent can
eliminate them for the honour of his family.
In case this Court does not grant them
protection, their life may be endangered.